Suze,
You summed up what I think perfectly well here:
"I don't begrudge Pearson earning a crust. In my personal opinion
he's just gotta get back in touch with his people's feelings. At the
moment 'some' of his ideas are talking assimilation, pure and simple.
People are wondering why, and of course are gonna suspect it's for some
kinda personal gain, career status. He better jump into damage control
real fast. I get the impression he really means well, and its maybe
cuttin him up that he can't just plonk the nice and simple solutions in
front of everyone. But ya can't ignore aboriginal culture if ya wanna
fix these problems. No shortcuts...Cultural Respect comes first and
foremost."
That's been my understanding of Australian history as it has
involved aboriginal self-determination for the last 20 years. Lots of
well-minded reformists, but they don't always have the support of the
people themselves, and their ideas run into trouble in the long run
because they are not supported. And for very good reasons. Most
reformism doesn't tackle the problems of class that Kim Bullimore and
Michael Mansell were talking about: Mandatory Sentencing, Land
Ownership, Self-Determination.
To Tim: Pearson says, that "Social being determines counciousness".
And that's a good thing, and I believe in it greatly. But if this is
true, then we have the government policy of "welfare reform", which is
opposed by the masses of people because it marks an assimilationist
shift in whose interests society is run for.
Actually, Pearson would/should also know that Karl Marx, in his
book "The German Ideology" he quoted from, went on to say that there
were those who mystify the democratic process, to obscure the real
causes of social inequality, and of course the famous statement he made
of the intellectuals of the mid-nineteenth century; "Everything is
Political". And my understanding of that is that you have to be careful
to listen to what workers themselves are saying about the political
process, and support their collective interests as a class. To be an
"active" intellectual, in fact, as Gramsci noticed Marx sorta meant. To
be political. It's mainly about Collectivism to me, "The German
Ideology"; a critique of pre-existing ideas in how well they support the
collective ambitions of history's most revolutionary class. I'm sure you
understand this, by the way. But it's important to reiniterate it's
original meaning.
There is a collection of some of Gramsci's writings available
on-line, Tim. You will find he is not just some intellectual that way,
although he does use a lot of intellectual concepts. He seems to me
intensely pissed off at class colloborationism and the lack of substance
in bourgeois political debate. It's really brilliant that someone has
decided to put some of Gramsci's work on-line by the way. The hardcover
editions of his books are unfortunately not cheap. I was quoted over $60
for a selection of his political writings. I was even quoted $45 in a
Melbourne second-hand bookshop, for a copy of his important early
Political writings. And people wonder why only University academics seem
to know much about Gramsci!
Here's the place to visit. Enjoy:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/index.htm
Cheers,
Matthew Davis
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
